For years the secessionist entities of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria have been refered to as “de facto states” and the conflicts around them – “frozen conflicts” (see previous posts on South Ossetia and Abkhazia). There has been a wide consensus that the term “frozen conflicts” is a misnomer. The conflicts have never been frozen, their settlement was. But the evolving realities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are making the term “de facto states” also increasingly obsolete.
Scott Pegg launched the debate on de facto states with a book published over a decade ago. He referred mainly to North Cyprus, Taiwan, Somaliland, and Tamil Eelam. Dov Lynch took the debate into the post-Soviet space with his book on the “Engaging Eurasia’s Separatist States: Unresolved Conflicts and De Facto States”. The argument in both books is that secessionist regions which control a more or less well-defined territory, population and have a set of state-like institutions can be termed as “de facto states”. They are unrecognised, but de facto independent.
The truth is of course more complicated because most “de facto” states have always relied on various levels of external support to ensure their security and/or economic development (think of Taiwan, North Cyprus or Abkhazia). So the term has always been relative. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria have outsourced a large chunk of their de facto independence to Russia: their borders have been de facto guarded by Russian peacekeepers, the Russian rouble was the official currency of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Transnistria has its own currency), some functions in the de facto governments (especially in South Ossetia) have been outsourced to Russia etc. There has always a large degree of “de facto integration” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Russia which was limiting their claims of being “de facto independent”. And still they were accepted by most analysts as “de facto states”. But the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence is accelerating the loss of their “de facto independence” if not by will, then by default.
The paradox is that until August 2008 Abkhazia and South Ossetia were unrecognised, but de facto independent; after August 2008 they became partly recognised, but not de facto independent anymore.
If the secessionist wars of 1992-1993 were their “wars for independence”, the August 2008 war is becoming the war that marked the loss of (their however limited) “de facto independence”. The 2008 was won by Russia, not the secessionist entities. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are quickly evolving from being “de facto states” to becoming “de facto Russian regions”. Most South Ossetians welcome that, but the Abkhaz are more ambivalent (for those who understand Russian see the photo of an article from an Abkhaz newspaper a month ago). For example a recent statement by Abkhaz opposition activists argues that “all the functions that ensure the sovereignty and independence of our state are ceded to an external party.” One can agree or nor with such a statement, but such a debate in Abkhazia is taking place. Either way, the trend towards de facto integration into Russia is near inevitable and near irreversible, for at least a couple of decades.
All the regional actors willingly or unwillingly contribute to this. Russia feels comfortable being the only gate to the world for the secessionist entities. It vetoed and expelled the OSCE mission from South Ossetia and the UN mission from Abkhazia, which will certainly contribute to their greater isolation. Georgia, at its turn, is also contributing to the greater isolation of the secessionist entities through its “law on occupied territories“. Georgian policies only increase the reliance of the secessionist entities on Russia. As for the EU, there are more and more cases of EU member states refusing visas to residents of Abkhazia. But Abkhazia and South Ossetia also contribute to their own self-isolation by refusing many international contacts for symbolic reasons (such as refusing to let the EU Monitoring Mission on their territories, or refusing to meet EU ambassadors to Georgia because they are ambassadors “to Georgia”). Such trends are hardly in the long-term interest of any of the actors in the conflict, but they are the result of previous policy choices made by all these actors themselves.
#1 by Wim Roffel on July 13, 2009 - 12:05 pm
I miss a reference to Kosovo. According to the logic of the article Kosovo could be described as an US-EU occupied territory. Russia has always closely looked to Kosovo in its policies for those areas. The takeover of the Georgian-held parts of South Ossetia and Abkhazia reminded me too of Kosovo where extending the rule of Pristina over the Serb majority parts is an important Western policy goal.
Also I am not so sure whether Russia is really absorbing those territories. I am reading reports about considerable anarchy – giving the impression that it might be an improvement if Russia really took up the government of the areas.
#2 by Nicu Popescu on July 13, 2009 - 12:35 pm
well, Russia’s North Caucasus (Ingushetia and Daghestan especially) is much more anarchic than Abkhazia or the rest of Georgia. Thus I would not necessarily equate “being part of Russia” with stability.
Kosovo was a UN protectorate and had an internationally recognised legal status, thus it was not a de facto state. now it is a semi-recognised state.
#3 by Erdogan on July 13, 2009 - 1:16 pm
from today’s Washington post:
“No one ever asks the question: ‘Why is there a brigade of 7,000 NATO troops in Kosovo? Why have all former Warsaw Pact countries been integrated into NATO?’ There is one reason: everyone wants a security for the state,” Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh said. “If other countries can do this, why can’t we pick a partner to defend us?”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/13/abkhazias-open-arms/?feat=home_headlines&page=1
Occupied territories? Yes, occupied by Stalin. We’re discussing about Stalin’s borders.
#4 by Abkhazia - my love on July 13, 2009 - 1:21 pm
Do you think it is just Russia which expelled the UN from Abkhazia ?Not the efforts of the EU either /
Did nt they want since last August thinking of moving the UN from South Caucasus just because to deprive Russia in this aera as just in the UN it has veto right ?
#5 by Apsua on July 13, 2009 - 2:17 pm
I think this is a rather superficial analysis, claiming that Abkhazia has lost its actual independence after the recognition by Russia – only because Russian troops are guarding its eastern borders. But the same is true for Armenia. The author should come to Abkhazia and investigate the things himself instead of spreading myths about this country. Why is Rumania in EU and NATO? Has it lost its \independence\ by this mere fact? Isn’t Georgia dependent on foreign aid (50 per cent of its annual income), and on hundreds of American advisers? ANY country is dependent on other countries, there is no such thing as full independence. And independent and recognized Abkhazia is no exception to it.
As to the term \semi-recognition\, which the authors uses, there is no such term under international law, which does not stipulate how many states should recognize a state to be called a state.
#6 by Nicu Popescu on July 13, 2009 - 3:36 pm
Apsua, I am sure you are aware of this letter http://www.regnum.ru/news/1164898.html or here http://www.rferl.org/content/Abkhaz_Opposition_Lambastes_President/1735185.html
Abkhazia – my love: from what I know in late may/early june there was something close to a compromise on renaming UNOMIG into smth that was acceptable for the Abkhaz and the Georgians. And the Abkhaz definitely wanted UN to stay.
Erdogan: The Serbian government agreed to the stationing of NATO troops under the Kumanovo agreement in June 1999 right after the bombing. All ex-Warsaw Pact members got integrated into NATO because THEY wanted to. Those that did not want – like Serbia, Moldova or Belarus – have not been integrated.
#7 by Kazimierz on July 14, 2009 - 1:54 am
In moral sense the issue is simple:
1. Stalin incorporated South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Georgia as autonomus republics.
2. Soviet Union collapsed, they couldn’t agree on autonomy, war followed, Abkhazia and South Ossetia won and became de facto independent states.
3. 17 years later, in 2008, Saakashvilli decides to forcibly incorporate South Ossetia and Abkhazia back into Georgia.
Few moral people would support the use of force to fulfill the will of Stalin and force Abkhazians and Ossetians back into Georgia.
Where is the problem? The problem is that “the Global Rome” wants to separate, isolate, and surround Russia. And the Georgia conflict is a good opportunity. The rest is politics (this includes some twisting of information, some “teritorial integrity” talk).
#8 by Abkhazia - my love on July 14, 2009 - 6:43 am
To Popescu
The last report of UN GS in which he did nt mention ” Abkhazia , Georgia was a kind of a success and it was supposed not just to change the name , but as well the format of the mission .
But in the resolution which was vetoed by Russia m the countries which supported ambitious Georgia , insisted on leaving and recalling the resolutions based on teh territoriak integrity of Georgia , which was not existing any more since 14 August 1992 , when Georgian tanks invaded Abkhazia. After the war , Abkhazia enjoyed that time of freedom and independence and even after being under the fierce blockade imposed by the CIS countries on teh demand of Shevarnadze , who just threatened Russians with withdrawing Russian bases which were located in Georgia.
The independnace is a peculiar thing and freedom is the sweetest word in the languages of our mankind , and show me just one person ,one people who does not strive for it and who will give it to someone on his own will ?
I am very sorry that European countries and the USA yet have no clear picture what is going here and they just think about pro – Kremlin essense of Abkhaz instead of opening the eyes and looking into the very depth of the problem
#9 by Nicu Popescu on July 14, 2009 - 9:33 am
Abkhazia-my love, the trends described have nothing to do with the “pro-kremlin nature of abkhazia”. and you know what is written above is a serious worry in abkhazia.
as for “having a clear picture of what is hapenning in abkhazia” – it is abkhazia’s primary responsibility to try to explain what is hapenning. kicking out the UN or refusing international contacts will certainly not help the EU and US understand what is hapenning there.
#10 by Abkhazia - my love on July 14, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Popesku
This is what I would like to ask you why the EU and the US decide to push the UN from this area ?
It is not Abkhazia or Russia . Even if Russia wanted to leave Abkhazia without international presence ? why the others played with her this game ?
No one could ever imagibne that Russia would veto it ?
For Abkhazia it was the UN which was a the channel to this world community which consnatntly denied to recognise us as human beings , refusing to get international passports , perfectly knowing that the Abkhaz will never take the Georgian ?
Why you give Kosovars international passports and you did not like what serbs did just because this was the USA protection ?
So the same here .
Russia protected Abkhazia and SO . It protects first of all its own interests but this time
once upon a time , it coinsided with ours /
Many waters in teh rivers must flow for the sleeping Europeans to explain what has happened /
And now , there is just one way out,
for the world especially if they are so much worried about us Recognise Abkhazia and SO
and all will take and be at the rigt place .
#11 by Anonymous on July 14, 2009 - 1:01 pm
Abkhazia – my love, that’s some nice reasoning you have there. I particularly like your comparison of the situation in Abkhazia to the one in Kosovo.
Nicu, my friend, whoever is paying you to spread that propaganda ought to think twice. Cause you really are doing a lousy job.
#12 by Abkhazia - my love on July 14, 2009 - 1:10 pm
to Anonimous
It was too much spoken about and I think that all of of teh people s have the right to self determination and this is not the privilge of the USA and it allies.
#13 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on July 14, 2009 - 2:40 pm
To Abkhazia: tell that to Chechens or Ingushs. Or tell that to Mister Putin… You will end up very dead… I am sorry to say, but I like Mister Popescu’s point that Abkhazia and South Ossetian’s “independences” are merely a choice for a different master. I don’t believe much into the “right for people to self determination” which has a 80% rate of being used for manipulation. I also don’t believe much into the “post World War II border respect principle”. They are both basis of the UN chart, highly contradictory and prone to misuse and abuse.
I am much more in favour of simple judgement calls. Let’s take the Kosovo example: was it a legal case, according to the UN charter? Not really. Kosovo was not even a federated state like other ex-Yugoslavian countries. So it was all about self-determination (of the Albanian-Kosovars) and respect of the internal borders (forcing the Serbian-Kosovars to belong to the rest of a fantasied Kosovo). I think it was a very lame way of doing.
Serbian forces were oppressing Albanian-Kosovars and killing people? The Kosovars were rebelling? Having a UN-NATO intervention was a good thing, which prevented much more killing. But it should have been followed on by a clear partition, on a voluntary basis. Whoever wanted to remain Serbian should have been able to do so. Whoever wanted to become independent Kosovar should have been able to do so too. The borders mean nothing. Most of these have been artificially drawn by powers to justify their crave for more…
#14 by Glenn on July 14, 2009 - 2:50 pm
…”kicking out the UN or refusing international contacts” !?!?
Who kicking out? Solution was very easy – NOT ”Abkhazia, Georgia”. Because Abkhazia is Abkhazia, NOT Georgia.
On 14 August 1992 when the Abkhazian Parliament was discussing a draft proposal for a Federation with Georgia, the Georgian bombs started falling on our heads, and the Georgian tanks attacked our towns and villages.
But no, Georgia is an angel for the west. They are %100 innocent. So, they can continue to give unlimited credit to Georgia.
As Stanislav Lakoba’s say: ”Is it really true that being part of the world-community we Abkhazians, numbering about 100,000 in Abkhazia itself, are doing harm to this community. Is it possible that if mankind, having already lost in the 19th century our brothers the Ubykhs, is now to lose us Abkhazians at the close of the 20th century, it will become somehow richer in the 3rd millennium A.D.?!”
—
Strongly recommend you read below quotes:
2006
Having ousted Shevardnadze from the Georgian presidency in 2003, President Mikheil Saak’ashvili, ILLEGALY sent troops (under the guise of law-enforcement officers) into the one part of Abkhazia that was not brought under Abkhazian control in 1993, the Upper K’odor Valley. The so-called ‘Abkhazian Government-in-exile’ was then installed there, and large amounts of weaponry (American, Israeli, Ukrainian) were stashed in the Valley (for what purpose?); a ‘NATO Information Centre’ [sic] was also opened there, even though Georgia was/is not a NATO member.
(What Obama Should Learn From the Past?
http://circassianworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-obama-should-learn-from-past.html)
—
Contrary to various misinformed reports, Abkhazia did not declare independence from Georgia either before, during, or upon its victory in, the war. Throughout years of negotiations, Abkhazia was willing to contemplate making a concession and to enter confederal relations with Georgia. And let it not be forgotten that for most of the 1990s, especially when Shevardnadze-protegé Andrej Kozyrev served as Boris Yeltsin’s Foreign Minister, Russia’s policy was by no means pro-Abkhazian, a CIS-blockade being imposed along Abkhazia’s River Psou border with Russia. But let us see what I had to say on this matter in my earlier review: ‘Abkhazia did not formally declare independence until 12 October 1999. And this was in large measure the result of frustration at continuing bad faith on the part of Tbilisi in post-war negotiations. Pace Cornell (p.192), it has not been the Abkhazians who have refused to compromise — one might say that after their military victory, they were fully entitled to declare independence at once (September 1993), and yet they continued to pursue federative possibilities, whilst all that Georgia has offered is a return to the status quo ante bellum (some compromise from Georgia!). After protracted talks and constant last-minute revisions by Georgia a Protocol was ready for presidential signing in summer 1997, and yet at the last minute Tbilisi (not Sukhum) refused (Abkhazian Foreign Ministry Document 325, 25 Dec 1997). Such petty obstructionism continues, for in February 2001 Georgia’s UN Ambassador, P’et’re Chkheidze, refused to sign two draft-documents, claiming them “unacceptable for the government of Georgia” — as the respected commentator, Liz Fuller, noted in her Radio Liberty report (4.5, 2 Feb 2001): “Chkheidze’s criticism is surprising as the versions of both drafts currently under discussion were proposed by the Georgian side”.’
http://circassianworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/reply-to-svante-cornells-daily.html
As i said, solution is very simple, easy. See the FACTS!
But…
No one is more blind than the one who does not want to see.
This is another fact.
#15 by Nicu Popescu on July 14, 2009 - 3:38 pm
For the record: i am not paid for this blog and only I decide what I write on this blog or elsewhere.
#16 by Oleg on July 14, 2009 - 4:52 pm
Note that Abkhazia attracts many Russian tourists so it has no problems with earning money for life, and it can become a true independent state, unlike Georgia and many countries in Eastern Europe. Abkhazians will achieve prosperity in 10 years if Georgia is kept away. On the contrary, South Osetia will not survive alone.
It has to get money from some big brother. The only candidate for this big brother is Russia.
#17 by Anonymous on July 15, 2009 - 6:41 am
@Jean-Baptiste Perrin
Dear fellow, there is absolutely no difference between the cases of Abkhazia/South Ossetia and Kosovo. Both represent breaches in international law. Only the former was done by Russia and the latter by the US. Even if you allow for the right to self-determination to supersede international law and state sovereignty, you still can’t make a distinction between the two cases, apart from the fact that the right to self-determination was supported by a different outsider. To my mind it really doesn’t make a difference who this outsider is.
Mind you, had the Americans decided not to mingle in Serbian internal affairs or had they left the EU to deal with the issue, Kosovo would’ve still been an integral part of Serbia. Likewise, Abkhazia/South Ossetia would’ve still been within Georgia. It is that simple.
cheers
#18 by Abkhazia - my love on July 15, 2009 - 8:03 am
@Jean-Baptiste Perrin
May I know what country are you from ?
Are there miniorities ?
And did your government behave badly to them ?
Are allof tehm happy ?
To live in another country and never even visitingteh place you are describing so pessimistically just make me so sorry and disappointed .
Kosovo is not that case to be compared to Abkhazia or South Osetia , as we did nt built or astate on someone land .
Kosovo is Serbial land and today all teh world just can do nothing as the Kosovarssare the allies of teh US , so you made me say to you this openly.
Regarding Abkhazia you can not say this , because Abkhaz live and they had lived on tehre own land and they have no other place like Albaniansn , have Albania , and Kosovars , Albanians wewre given a chance to create a second Albanian state .
This strange offer of yours , to ask Putin , why Putin / what Putin can do if Obama or Mister Sarkozy will recognise Abkhazia and SO , and tehy refuse from these ugly doulble standards on which the international community builds there own approaches which mostly as yours sound biassed ?
#19 by peaceinGeorgia on July 15, 2009 - 12:15 pm
when talking about Abkhazia, everybody mentions Kosovo (which is in no way the same to Abkhazia-Georgia relations). But you guys forget the portion of the population kicked out of Abkhazia on ethnic bases. Does a modern independent coutry, as Abkhazia claims to be, cleanses its population? Instead of talking about Stalins policy, 1992 Abkhazia parliament resolutions, etc, which are no longer relavent and important for the current situation, it is better to discuss which are conditions to be fulfilled in order for Georgia and abkhazia find common ground for cooperation. Leave the status aside, Georgia and Abkhazia need to cooperate in several fields like, security, human rights, economics, education. Until people of abkhazia and georgia do not realized that, they will remain subject of influence from Russia, and US…they will remain as a mere negotiation chip, unable to decide their fate for themselves. Both people need to look beyond propaganda and brainwashing media, nationalist and stupid discourses of their politicians.
#20 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on July 15, 2009 - 4:14 pm
Dear Anonymous, I never said Kosovo and Abkhazia were different. I merely said that Kosovo’s independence was not respecting the rules of the UN charter. And I also said that military or political interventions should always be judgement calls. So, actually, I am not so much in disagreement with you…
Dear Abkhazia-my love, I am French and living in the Netherlands. To answer your questions, yes, France has a couple of minorities. No, the government does not treat them badly (not worse than the rest of the citizens, anyway…) and no, they are not all happy. Can I ask you which country I would have not visited and make these comments on? If you mean Kosovo, that’s correct, I never went there, although I have various acquaintances who have been there or were parties to the conflict at some point.
Kosovo was certainly Serbia land, I never said anything else. I just meant that this was irrelevant to the judgement call made. After what had happened in Bosnia, the Western European and their allies could simply not allow Serbia to continue acting the same way. Some sort of independence became unavoidable. As I said in my previous post, I believe this independence was very poorly handled by these Western powers.
As for Abkhazia, I think there has been very bad things done on both sides and it is a shame. However, I am afraid there again that partition is the only way. And there too, the minority (Georgian) is going to get the rough end of the stick, just like the minority (Serbian) in Kosovo did. Only the one handling the stick is Russian in Abkhazia’s case and UN-EU in the Kosovo case.
#21 by Anonymous on July 15, 2009 - 7:07 pm
You’re quite right, we almost agree. A few points though.
1. Military interventions should by no means be judgment calls. Rather, they ought to be based on international law. Otherwise, following the same judgment, USA should bomb Russia for mistreating its Northern Caucasus minorities and China for mistreating Tibetans and Turkic peoples. This will obviously not take place. Now, by applying various methods in different situations, following only its narrow interest and nothing else, the world hegemon creates anxiety that gives birth to terrorism and the like. To cut a long story short, the trouble with judgment calls is that if we follow those, in the long we’ll have WWIII on our hands.
2. The UN didn’t intervene in Kosovo. It was the US. Like I said in my previous post, it is the US that is responsible for all the mess today in both Kosovo and Abkhazia/South Ossetia, cause I reckon the Russians would’ve had the balls to intervene in Georgia had it not been for the Kosovo case. As for EULEX, I can argue it is a total shambles. And so long as we don’t have a political union in place and a European Army, the EU’s common foreign and security policy will be nothing but a joke.
3. There are no western Europeans and eastern Europeans. There are just Europeans. I should’ve thought that’s the predominant notion after the fall of the Berlin Wall. I’d go on to say that it’s our responsibility as Europeans to try to retract the mess done by the yankees all around the globe (Kosovo, Georgia, Afghanistan.. the list is endless). And if you’d care to ask how, I’d say Lisbon is a good way to start.
#22 by alex on July 16, 2009 - 5:25 pm
Sergei Bagapsh’s interview for echo moskvy:
http://echo.msk.ru/programs/beseda/605593-echo/
“Если отношения России и Абхазии называются зависимостью, я за такую зависимость…” – “if you consider the Abkhaz – Russian relations as dependence, than I am in favour of such dependence”.
#23 by Ateneas on July 20, 2009 - 7:23 am
When speaking about the “de facto” independent states of the former Soviet Union, political statesmen and analyst forget that it is firs of all human factor that determins the existing situation. The post-Soviet ethnic or territorial conflicts have the problem of HUMAN RIGHTS in the core of them. After all, it’s logical, there wouldn’t be any separatistic moods if the minorities felt safe and secure and their identity and rights were respected. In this context it is quite understandable why Abkhazians and South Osetians would rather prefere Russian dominanion than the Georgian one: because Russians all in all respect their identity even if they keep them dependent. What Georgians haven’t understood throughout these years, being a multiethnic country, it hasn’t learnt to respect its minorities. A multiethnic country cannot afford to have a nationalistic policy and propaganda, but that’s what Georgians have been doing throughout their history. Now Tbilisi has unspoken problems with the Armenian and Azerbaijani minorities: Tbilisi is scared that these minorities in the southern Georgia would also chose the path of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Can anyone tell me why shouln’t they, when Tbilisi violates the rights of its minorities? After all, it’s so simle to understand: it’s impossible to FORCE someone to do something. For that you should PERSUADE. Waging wars against minorities and then telling them to come under your control- it’s ridiuculous. Why not creating tolerance in the country, why not creating safe grounds for the minorities, why not giving them EQUAL opportunities? This is the ONLY way Tbilisi can EVER have control over the regions. The only way out is Georgia’s FEDERALISATION.
#24 by Astamur on July 20, 2009 - 9:25 pm
Its strange that so many speak about Abkhaz \independence\ after the Georgian \agression\ and everybody forgets to mention what Russian did in Chechnia? Was it genoside? I fully agree with Nicu Popescu Abkhazia and South Ossetia doomed to be bargain chip between Georgia and Russia (in case Georgia falls under Russian influence) or between Russia and West..in any case there is no prospect for so called independence..simply put it its not Russias interest to do it…
#25 by Marcel on July 21, 2009 - 3:13 am
As long as the antidemocratic EU is working to destroy the livelyhood of African farmers and fishermen, the ‘west’ does not hold moral supremacy here.
#26 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on July 21, 2009 - 1:52 pm
Dear Anonymous,
I have to agree to disagree on your point 1: although I think that states should follow international law, it is unfortunately still the exception and there is no way currently to enforce the UN charter, so I rest my point that judgment calls are the only realistic possibility. I do agree with you, however, that this is not a desirable situation, merely that we have little choice for it.
I more or less agree with your point 2. Although I think the NATO intervention in Kosovo did receive UN approval (I may be wrong, I didn’t have time to fact check this), the following independence of Kosovo and its recognition by some Western powers was clearly messy and illegal.
I completely and unreservedly agree with your point 3. We badly need a Common Foreign EU policy and a Common Defense policy (for non-neutral EU states, obviously, thus excluding Finland, Ireland and Austria as long as they chose so).
#27 by Lawrence on July 22, 2009 - 11:35 am
Jean-Baptiste Perrin
Malta is a neutral State with neutrality enshrined in the Constitution and should not be participating in the CFSP.
#28 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on July 23, 2009 - 9:31 am
Sorry Lawrence, I forgot Malta. My (honest) mistake.
#29 by Lawrence on July 23, 2009 - 4:03 pm
Jean-Baptiste Perrin
OK Jean-Baptiste.
NO problem.
Regards,
Lawrence
#30 by Nika on August 13, 2009 - 2:27 pm
Dear Kazimierz,
Stalin did not incorporate south ossetia and abkhazia into Georgia. the term south ossetia only appeared in 1921 when Stalin gave a big chunk of lands of Kartli region (Samachablo) tu ossetian bolsheviks as a reward for fighting against Georgian independent state. By the way in 1921 only three ossetian families lived in town of Tskhinvali. So, please be careful when you saying something otherwise you sound very absurd.
#31 by Nika on August 13, 2009 - 2:39 pm
Georgia did not try to retake Abkhazia by force in 2008, it is a lie. Georgian positions in Kodori gorge were attacked by russian planes and russian soldiers. Georgia has never carried out ethnic cleansing of ossetian or abkhaz populations. About 100 000 ethnic ossetians live in other parts of Georgia rather than South Ossetia peacefully. Could you tell me dear abkhaz and ossetian human rights’ advocates how many ethnic georgians reside today in Sukhumi, Tskhinvali or adjacent towns and villages that are controlled by your and russian troops. Where are these 250 000 Georgians from Abkhazia and 25 000 from Tskhinvali, are they living peacefully in their homes? Independence can not be achieved through ethnic cleansing.
#32 by Wim Roffel on August 17, 2009 - 12:09 pm
Nika, 100,000 Ossetians in other parts of Georgia was before 1991. Unfortunately Georgia under Gamsakhurdia (“Georgia for the Georgians”) drove many of them out and they haven’t been allowed to return since. Letting them return would be a logical first step towards re-integrating South Ossetia but Saakashvili preferred violence above the undoing of Georgian injustice.
See for example: http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/march-2006/property-restitution-deal-for-south-ossetia/
Even now there are more Ossetian exiles from Georgia than Georgian exiles from South Ossetia.
#33 by Meson on September 28, 2010 - 5:02 am
One example of dilemma “international law” vs “common sense”: We may argue who fired the first shot, but evidently, both Georgian attack on South Ossetia (not Abkhazia) and Russian attack on Georgia were military campaigns certainly not organized overnight – it’s been a long time preparation on both sides, probably since Georgia voiced its interest to join NATO at the Bucharest NATO summit. Anyway, my point is that things were moving fast all the time while EU was sleeping in its narcist self-confidence. EU needs badly to change this approach. It is going to be painful though, because acting fast inherently raises risk of being wrong and imbalanced and moreover, “it might anger Russia”. Life is hard.